Forum:Congress
]] Congress is the legislative and executive body of government. According to the Constitution of 1802 (1852 amendment), the Congress is to be "made up of lawfully elected citizens, chosen by popular consent to govern each of the Parishes". Anyone may propose resolutions to congress, but only the Congress Representatives may vote on them. 1. Abortion 1. ) With complance with the constitution of Carrington and the Bill of Rights, the practise of abortion in Carrington shall be deemed illegal, unless the threat of the child or womens life. : I. ) Any type of abortion is seen illegal and against humanity, and shall not be allowed. : II. ) Cases in which would in means of dramaticly damaging the baby or mother, or even death shall an abortion be allowed. : III. ) Emergency contraception is seen as a act of blocking fertilization, and is not seen as an abortion. The government shall provide free Emergency contraception in cases of rape, mental health, death. : : :: I'm thinking ever represenative should have aleast one post- or comment before the act of casting a vote. Zackary Perry 04:41, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::: It looks good and I think most reps will support it, but I doubt Andersen will support it. HORTON11 04:47, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::: I would think the liberals, I mean the hardcore ones and Andersen would oppose it. Zackary Perry 04:49, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::: Well ,it allows for minimal abortion use, so it should go ok. HORTON11 04:56, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::: Shall we vote ? Zackary Perry 05:07, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::::: Sure, I guess. HORTON11 05:10, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::::: ::::::: I'm all for this, so I suppose Peitersson and Schwartz are as well. BoredMatt 21:07, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::: Most of the conservatives will oppose it. HORTON11 21:15, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::: Don't you mean liberals? I'd think most conservatives would support this. BoredMatt 21:24, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::: Conservatives or moderate conservatives would be all over this in support, liberals woulden't like it so much. Zackary Perry 21:29, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::: Radical Conservaties (like Andersen) tend not to support abortion, since it allows some chance of actual abortion. THe moderates are the top supporters, for it ia a moderate proposal. HORTON11 21:37, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::: :::::::::: Well going from completely legal abortions to making 95% of abortions legal is a pretty conservative move, IMO. BoredMatt 21:40, February 9, 2011 (UTC) ::::::::::: As Sofia would say "the only good abortion is NO abortion". She's one of those all-or-none politicians who can rarely compromise. HORTON11 21:43, February 9, 2011 (UTC) :::::::::::: I would only support the law when all abortion is not alowed completely. So I say no to this. Sofia Andersen 17:51, February 11, 2011 (UTC) ::::::: Pro ::::::: Zackary Daniel Perry ::::::: Gert Henneman ::::::: Eric Peitersson ::::::: John Schwartz ::::::: Magdalene Klassen ::::::: David Andrade ::::::: Contra ::::::: Sofia Andersen ::::::: Adrian Vandreck ::::::: Marcus Villanova ::::::: Abstain 2. Use of the Euro. We need alittle talk on this fourm, thats what a forum is for right? :D While I strongly support a good economy- taking the easy road to using the Euro is not the way. Not only will we be over shadowed by the larger Euro uses, we will also depend on them- if they go down the drain, we go down the drain. I fully support we switch from our Euro's to a home currency. Zackary Daniel Perry 06:54, March 27, 2011 (UTC) Though having a home currency woiuld be nice, I do not think it would be very viable. The Euro is far more practical than any national currency we could have since it can be used in much of Europe. For a little country like us, the Euro has its benefits. HORTON11 11:54, March 27, 2011 (UTC) I too support this! Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:26, April 1, 2011 (UTC) : But a switch to the Euro is not the most practical solution. But, a national currency may also be good for our economy, and ensuring our sovereignty. HORTON11 01:40, April 2, 2011 (UTC) ::::: If I might come in (don't know the rules here..). You might be interested in using the euro, while not becoming part of the eurozone, like Kosovo and Montenegro Wikipedia:International status and usage of the euro#Other users. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 07:23, May 26, 2012 (UTC) :: Sure, welcome! That is a god idea, but there are many advantages for a small country like this to join the Eurozone. HORTON11: • 13:08, May 26, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, currently it would be better to await the financial situation. Imagine Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal going bankrupt while Brunant joined the eurozone one month prior to the bankrupcy. That will mean a total collapse of Brunant's economy. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 13:37, May 26, 2012 (UTC) :::::You are right on that. It is practically said that Greece will leave, so perhaps its best to wait. HORTON11: • 14:35, May 26, 2012 (UTC) 3. IWO membership I don't quite understand the Brunanter political system, but I'm not sure that Brunant has yet become (officially) a member of the IWO. In Lovia we had to pass a bill accepting the Declaration through Congress, for instance. Could someone confirm for me that everything necessary has been done so that Brunant can legally join the IWO? Forgive my ignorance, I just want to check everything is watertight. Thanks! :) --Semyon 18:17, August 20, 2012 (UTC) I haven't proposed a bill cause Brunant's political system isn't as active as Lovia's. But I will do so; hopefully people vote. In the future when there are enough users here, I would like the Senate to be fully user controlled and the house to be like Lovia's NCO, a blown-up proportional-representation of votes in the senate. Perhaps you might like to join; we can remove one of the fake characters from the senate and give you their seat. HORTON11: • 18:29, August 20, 2012 (UTC) Ok, is it alright if we 'pretend' Congress has passed it? :P Yes, I'd be happy to join the senate, if you're planning to restart the political system. --Semyon 18:57, August 20, 2012 (UTC) We can just pretend. And if you like, Sint-Anders, Helmond, Brunant and Mariaberg Parish's senate seats may be taken. Just look through the Senate page and choose. HORTON11: • 19:06, August 20, 2012 (UTC) 4. Insel Islands Could Brunant also vote for the Insel Islands to join IWO? --OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:49, December 8, 2012 (UTC) Yes, but we would only have around 5 active voters (including you). HORTON11: • 15:11, December 8, 2012 (UTC) No problem 3 out of 5 and it is accepted :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:41, December 8, 2012 (UTC) Pro. 3 out of 5 majority. Done. Happy65 15:45, December 8, 2012 (UTC) Okay, that's quick :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 16:44, December 8, 2012 (UTC) I know. Much quicker than Lovia. Just 5 hours in Brunant and done. Happy65 17:00, December 9, 2012 (UTC) What is Insel Islands? Granero (talk) 02:05, December 10, 2012 (UTC) A Swedish-language wikination in the North Sea: http://nation.wikia.com/wiki/Insel_Islands Matt (talk) 02:08, December 10, 2012 (UTC) Okay, I will vote for it. Granero (talk) 02:13, December 10, 2012 (UTC) 5. Back to the Thaler If the following vote passes, the official currency of Brunant will be the Thaler and Brunant will no longer use the Euro. Happy65 17:48, December 9, 2012 (UTC) For *Peter Wostor *Eric Peitersson *Wabba The I (talk) 19:03, December 16, 2012 (UTC) (James Stanton) *Warren Sheraldin (8 votes) 77topaz (talk) 10:06, August 30, 2013 (UTC) (Not sure what the point of voting on such an old bill is, but here you go :P) Neutral *--OuWTBsjrief-mich 09:43, December 12, 2012 (UTC) (it will not be a positive development in interwiki trade, as Mäöres also has the euro) *HORTON11: • 17:31, December 19, 2012 (UTC) (against for practical and realistic reasons, but pro for our own currency designs) Against *—TimeMaster (talk • ) 18:33, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Comments We should have a 'neutral' section. Though I would like a return to the thaler as we would have our own currency designs back, realistically that would be very hard to do. HORTON11: • 18:44, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Time, you are not a rep. Happy65 18:51, December 9, 2012 (UTC) So? There were never elections. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 19:38, December 9, 2012 (UTC) You could ask Horton to take over an inactive party and then become a rep. Happy65 19:50, December 9, 2012 (UTC) As I've made quite clear, I'm opposed to "taking over" and "becoming" reps on Brunant, so I will not. I prefer a communal system. Sorry. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 20:22, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Long live the Thaler! Happy65 19:17, December 16, 2012 (UTC) Passed. By an Active Majority. Confirmed by Gert Henneman. Happy65 17:33, December 19, 2012 (UTC) Passed (but just 50%). HORTON11: • 17:39, December 19, 2012 (UTC) 50% is not a majority, so this wouldn't be passed. At least make it retroactive if this is passed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:45, December 21, 2012 (UTC) It is passed fully, because there was only one against, but 3 fors, and that is what is calculated when the against and neutral adds up to the same as the for. Happy65 09:15, December 29, 2012 (UTC) Nonono. There has to be a majority in support of it. Not an equality. This is not passed. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 14:33, December 29, 2012 (UTC) We can just wait and see if others will vote. Irl this would take months to implement so a delay isn't problematic. HORTON11: • 14:53, December 29, 2012 (UTC) Passed now. Happy65 10:21, August 30, 2013 (UTC) Firearms Regulation Act of 2012 A. Excepting those who are deemed mentally incompetent or those with violent crimes on their criminal record, citizens of Brunant shall be allowed to purchase, possess, use, and transport firearms with the following restrictions. I. Firearms are to be classified into the following legal categories. Any firearm that does not explicity fall into these categories is automatically a Banned item. i. Unrestricted: These firearms may be purchased by any citizen over 21 who presents a valid government-issued ID such as a driver's license and who passes a backround check processed in person by an officer of the law. This class of firearms includes: *Rimfire target and hunting rifles *Single- and double-shot centerfire rifles and shotguns. This includes combination guns. *Black powder hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns ii. Class 1 Restricted: These firearms may only be purchased by citizens who posess a valid Hunting and Firearm Ownership License, and who go through the process listed above. These firearms include: *Rimfire target pistols with magazine capacities of 10 rounds or less *Centerfire rifles that are not semiautomatic and have a magazine capacity of 10 rounds or less *Pump-action and lever-action shotguns with a capacity of 5 rounds or less *Centerfire handguns such as derringers and snake guns with a capacity of 2 rounds or less iii. Class 2 Restricted: These firearms may only be purchased by citizens who possess a valid Hunting and Firearm Ownership License, and who go through the process listed above. These firearms must also be registered with the local law enforcement department, and have a 2 month waiting period between purchase and acquirement. This second requirement may be voided if the purchaser is active duty military or law enforcement. These firearms include: *Centerfire handguns (including revolvers) *Centerfire rifles with capacities over 10 rounds, or any centerfire semiautomatic rifle *Shotguns with capacities over 5 rounds, or any centerfire semiautomatic shotgun iv. Any firearm that does not explicitly fall into the categories listed above is to be classified as Banned, and cannot be possessed by any individual, legal trust, business, or institution without special exemption, to be granted only by written permission from the local law enforcement department and the head of the municipal government. Banned items include not simply firearms but accessories and other related devices. Such items include but are not limited to: *Magazines of over 20 rounds *Fully automatic weapons II. Citizens who wish to acquire Restricted firearms must first possess a valid copy of a Hunting and Firearm Ownership License. This is obtained by passing a psychological exam and being interviewed by local law enforcement. The license must be renewed every two years. Each license is binding to the individual to which it is issued, and cannot be sold, transferred or otherwise used by another individual. III. When transporting on public roads or when stored in vehicles, firearms must be kept unloaded and in a locked travel case hidden from plain view. i. Parishes and municipalities may create additional regulations at their discretion. IV. Firearms may be discharged at, in, or on: *Private property (with owner's permission) *Public and private ranges/gun clubs *Private hunting preserves (with owner's permission) *Public land set aside for hunting (during hunting season only and user must have HFOL) i. Parishes and municipalities may create additional regulations at their discretion. B. Those individuals who are found to be in violation of the above regulations shall be subject to the following penalties. I. Possessing a Class 1 Restricted firearm without a valid HFOL is to be classified as a nonviolent felony. The minimum penalty shall be 18 months in prison, the revoking of the privilege of possessing any firearm or ammunition whatsoever for 5 years and the revoking of the privilege of holding an HFOL and/or possessing a Restricted firearm for 10 years. II. Possessing a Class 2 Restricted firearm without a valid HFOL and/or without proper registration is to be classified as a nonviolent felony. The minimum penalty shall be 36 months in prison, the revoking of the privilege of possessing any firearm or ammunition whatsoever for 5 years and the revoking of the privilege of holding an HFOL and/or possessing a Restricted firearm for 10 years. III. Violations of transportation and usage regulations are to be classified as nonviolent misdemeanors, and will result in a revoking of the violator's HFOL and the inability to possess a firearm or ammunition for 5 years. Individual parishes may craft their own legislation regarding additional penalties. For: *Eric Peitersson Neutral: Against: Comments: Please give any suggestions you have. This is just a framework to define existing law, not an all-encompassing omnibus. Matt (talk) 20:24, December 9, 2012 (UTC) It seems a bit informal to be a law. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 21:32, December 9, 2012 (UTC) How so? Haha, I mean unless you are being sarcastic, it's more formal than most of the other initiatives presented here. Matt (talk) 21:44, December 9, 2012 (UTC) Well, you've got my support in the generalities, but it's not written in a very good legal format and it uses things like "such as these things in this US law". I'd prefer a more formal law. Have you seen the law on Lovia? —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:00, December 11, 2012 (UTC) And you're right that it's a lot better than the other proposals, though they are mostly resolutions or declarations. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:00, December 11, 2012 (UTC) There shou;d be a penalities section for breaking the law.MMunson (talk) 00:17, December 11, 2012 (UTC) Understood on both counts. I'll work on revising it. Matt (talk) 00:38, December 11, 2012 (UTC) Not exactly standard Lovian format, but it'll do. Matt (talk) 01:30, December 11, 2012 (UTC) I'm opposed to the use of roman numerals in any sort of documents, and I really like the Lovian format. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 03:00, December 13, 2012 (UTC) I like this law,its detailed, but maybe you could make it in the Lovian style, Time, because it looks more proffesional. Granero (talk) 03:19, December 13, 2012 (UTC) Tobacco Control Act Tobacco Control Act :1. Tobacco is defined as cigarettes, cigars, pipes, water pipes, chewing or snuff tobacco and other derivatives of the tobacco plant. :2. All forms of smoking and tobacco use are prohibited to: :#Persons under the age of 18 years :#Persons in the presence or company of a minor below the age of 13 years :#In public areas, including but not limited to: :3. All forms of smoking and tobacco use are prohibited in: :#Public businesses including bars, cafés, restaurants, hotels and shopping centers :#Government offices, including parish and city offices :#Public-use buildings including hospitals, schools, enclosed workplaces and :#Public transportation systems including buses, trains, trams, taxis and stations :4. Smoking and tobacco use is legal in: :#Private property and houses :#Open public spaces :5. Smoking is also permitted in specialized smoking bars :#As long as they have a valid permit and smoking signage, and :#They do not permit children and minors into the establishment :#Said smoking bars shall be distributed as such: :##A maximum of two smoking bars will be awarded to cities and towns :6. Violating smoking laws can result in serious fines :#Persons smoking in an enclosed public area can be fined €100 to €200 depending on the nature :##Repeat offenses will be subject to a higher fine :#Businesses circumventing smoking laws can be fined anywhere between €1000 and €3000 depending on the gravity of the violation and may lose their establishment permit ---- Comments 19 is too high. Make it between 16 and 18. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 15:41, January 11, 2013 (UTC) Then 18, cause 16 or 17 year olds smoking isn't acceptable. HORTON11: • 15:50, January 11, 2013 (UTC) I'm against 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1 and 4.2. Wabba The I (talk) 15:57, January 11, 2013 (UTC) So you're against the whole act, then? HORTON11: • 16:06, January 11, 2013 (UTC) Now that the age is lowered to 18, I'm in full support of this act. Davina Rose (talk) 20:08, January 11, 2013 (UTC) Davina, you're back! Happy65 20:09, January 11, 2013 (UTC) Hey Mrs. Henneman, hopefully you stick around a little longer. Happy, do you like the act (or are you more like Wabba). HORTON11: • 20:48, January 11, 2013 (UTC) What's so important about 18? It shouldn't be the magic age for so many things. 18-year olds really aren't that less stupid (not academically) than 16-year olds. If you want only mature people to smoke, I'd say 24. Otherwise, 16. —TimeMaster (talk • ) 00:14, January 12, 2013 (UTC) 18 years old is a common age to be considered adult, so at this age you can be responsable for your action's. I would like 24. but nobody will support because it's too extreme. Wabba The I, the fines are need because or else nobody will follow the law, it's important to have consequences for bad actions. Granero (talk) 01:27, January 12, 2013 (UTC) Banning smoking in all bars doesn't work. We've seen it in the Netherlands. I propose to change it to "illegal in bars with more than one bartender". --OuWTBsjrief-mich 18:51, January 17, 2013 (UTC) : Look at Canada, they have rather strict no-smoking policy and it works. Plus the big fine should be enough to deter people from breaking the law. HORTON11: • 18:58, January 17, 2013 (UTC) Alright, even though I think two per city (one per 50,000 inh??) is way too little. I'm gonna support it now. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 08:31, January 18, 2013 (UTC) : Well I was going to go with your 1 per 5000, and that makes over 20 smoking bars which is a lot. In the future we could make provisions to allow another one if needed. HORTON11: • 14:25, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::It looks like a lot, I know. But I compared it to my home town which has 3,000 inhs and 8 bars, so that would mean about one in ten bars would be a smoking bar. With the current legislation, 1 in 100 will be, which is probably too little. --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:49, January 18, 2013 (UTC) :::But then again many bars aren't just standalone, they may be part of a casino, a restaurant or a hotel. HORTON11: • 14:53, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::Oh, I wasn't talking about those bars. My hometown has 8 pubs :P --OuWTBsjrief-mich 14:59, January 18, 2013 (UTC) ::::Sheesh, I live in a town that size and I don't think it has more than 2. :P 77topaz (talk) 21:49, January 19, 2013 (UTC) ::::Generally, I'm against most of this. Maybe we could have have bans on smoking on public property w/ the exception of specifically-designated areas, and have zoning regulations for where businesses that allow smoking can operate, but it's a little inane to set up a quota for the amount of smoking bars per municipality. The government should not be in the business of legislating morality, and this bill seems to want to restrict the usage of tobacco on moral grounds of its supposed "badness", as opposed to trying to solve any health-related problems that arise from its use. Also, how does it make sense to include smokeless tobacco, like snuff, snus, chew, dip, etc. in the bill? I wasn't aware that such substances pose a health risk to the community like secondhand smoking does. The same could be said for water pipes/shishas and the like. ::::Matt (talk) :::: Darn Libertas becoming a full member of the IWO Libertas, Inselöarna and Lovia voted pro. So why Brunant not? Wabba The I (talk) 20:26, May 18, 2013 (UTC) *'For': **11 Pro Wabba The I (talk) 20:26, May 18, 2013 (UTC) **(we use the lovian system now) 8 Pro Marcus/Michael Villanova 20:51, May 18, 2013 (UTC) **16 votes pro. HORTON11: • 11:50, May 19, 2013 (UTC) *''Contra'': **... Traspes Becoming an IWO member Ok, the Traspes wiki is rather well made and is active so I think it'd be a good candidate for full IWO membership. (the link). HORTON11: • 14:34, December 12, 2013 (UTC) *For: **15 votes. HORTON11: • 14:34, December 12, 2013 (UTC) **... *Contra: **... Comments Leaving the IWO The IWO obviously is not working, so I suggest we leave it. Pro *27 seats Nick Talk 10:05, February 17, 2015 (UTC) *11 seats Wabba The I (talk) 10:20, February 17, 2015 (UTC) Against Discussion I'd honestly prefer remaining, for whatever reason. We don't lose anything by being a member during inactivity. HORTON11: • 16:38, February 17, 2015 (UTC) Nope, we need to stablise our relationship with Brunant and other IWO countries. We also need Brunant to help our relations with the IWO. Lancededcena (talk) 14:44, October 21, 2015 (UTC) Brunant will soon have massive influence within the IWO council (more than any other wikination), therefore I'm now against leaving. ] [[User:Happy65|'Happy65']] [[User talk:Happy65|'Talk']] 15:26, October 21, 2015 (UTC)